There is also the St Athanasius Academy Septuagint by the St Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology. Thomas Nelson publishes the translation in the Orthodox Study Bible.

The Thomas Nelson Orthodox Study Bible is a flawed LXX translation. See the many reviews/critiques of it on the Internet. E.g., Psalm 22 (Ps. 23 English) conforms to the Masoretic Text, not the Old Greek text, when it reads "The Lord is my shepherd" instead of "The Lord shepherds me" (the Hebrew could be read either way, but the LXX translators chose to make it a verb) and "You anoint my head with oil; My cup runs over." instead of "You anointed my head with oil, and your cup intoxicates as the most excellent [wine?]."

There is also the St Athanasius Academy Septuagint by the St Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology. Thomas Nelson publishes the translation in the Orthodox Study Bible.

The Thomas Nelson Orthodox Study Bible is a flawed LXX translation. See the many reviews/critiques of it on the Internet. E.g., Psalm 22 (Ps. 23 English) conforms to the Masoretic Text, not the Old Greek text, when it reads "The Lord is my shepherd" instead of "The Lord shepherds me" (the Hebrew could be read either way, but the LXX translators chose to make it a verb) and "You anoint my head with oil; My cup runs over." instead of "You anointed my head with oil, and your cup intoxicates as the most excellent [wine?]."

Interesting. I never bothered to read the LXX version of Ps 23 since I only do that when I have a particular reason to compare the MT with the LXX (and I never had one), but you are correct. Someone was asleep to let that slip through.

First: welcome to the forums, since no one said that after your first post.

Uservoice is for features, not books. Logos can decide how to spend developers' time based on votes, because they employ those developers. They can't decide what books to publish based on votes, because they don't own the rights to those books. If the copyright holder says no, it doesn't matter if you've gathered a million votes. Logos still can't produce it. So all your suggestion is doing really is to take votes away from other suggestions, where they might have had an influence.

It's also probably the least likely place for your suggestion to be noticed. I doubt that the publishing team reads Uservoice. The best way to get a resource suggestion noticed is to send a mail to suggest@logos.com. The second best is to use the Suggestion forum. After that it's really very little we can do, except wait. You could try contacting the publisher directly, but that may or may not help. Sometimes it's a good idea, but there's been rumours that some publishers get really annoyed by it.

And as for "Should be easy to license/import as Accordance has had it for years", well, that may be precisely why it's impossible to license. Accordance may have negotiated a contract that gives them the sole right to publish NETS electronically.

"The Christian way of life isn't so much an assignment to be performed, as a gift to be received." Wilfrid Stinissen

First: welcome to the forums, since no one said that after your first post.

Thanks fgh :)

fgh:

Uservoice is for features, not books.

I saw other book suggestions there, so I thought it was ok, sorry .

fgh:

Logos can decide how to spend developers' time based on votes, because they employ those developers. They can't decide what books to publish based on votes, because they don't own the rights to those books. If the copyright holder says no, it doesn't matter if you've gathered a million votes. Logos still can't produce it.

True, but if the copyright holder says yes, it does take developers' time to implement, particularly if they do the Reverse Interlinear.

fgh:

The best way to get a resource suggestion noticed is to send a mail to suggest@logos.com. The second best is to use the Suggestion forum.

I've done both & now I've also emailed NETS & the Oxford University Press to make sure there isn't a problem a their end.

fgh:

And as for "Should be easy to license/import as Accordance has had it for years", well, that may be precisely why it's impossible to license. Accordance may have negotiated a contract that gives them the sole right to publish NETS electronically.

Maybe, but the following makes me hope that's not the case, http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/ "The files of this electronic edition are in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format. ... You are free to download these files for your personal, scholarly purposes. ... NETS is currently available as a module in Accordance, and we expect that other electronic Bible databases will also license it from the Press in the future." However, I'll only know for sure when they reply to my emails.

No need for the . I don't think it's forbidden in any way, just not very meaningful in my opinion.

Alex Smith:

True, but if the copyright holder says yes, it does take developers' time to implement, particularly if they do the Reverse Interlinear.

From everything I've read, the text development teams are separate from the software development teams, and those who do RI's are even more separate. Also, the text development teams are the ones that bring in the money, the software development teams are the ones that spend it, so I think we can be pretty confident that no votes of ours are needed to give the former whatever they need from the latter. And since NETS has every potential to become a bestseller, I suspect we can also be pretty confident that if it's not being produced, it's not because Logos doesn't want to.

Alex Smith:

the following makes me hope that's not the case, (...) we expect that other electronic Bible databases will also license it from the Press in the future."

Good find, and good sign.

Alex Smith:

I've also emailed NETS & the Oxford University Press

Ouch! Is OUP involved? Very bad sign. Logos currently seems to be having serious troubles licensing anything at all from OUP.

"The Christian way of life isn't so much an assignment to be performed, as a gift to be received." Wilfrid Stinissen